Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles A. Long

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles A. Long

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails the general notability guideline as well as WP:POLITICIAN. Could not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources either for his academic career or for his political candidacies. JayJasper (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plus, all the sources in the article are either primary, non-reliable, or provide only trivial coverage of the subject. No evidence of notability.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This individual's sources are negligible, and he doesn't appear to have any notable works in his field, and was a non-competitive candidate Spartan7W § 19:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing he has done to date makes him notable. If he makes a significant showing the the New Hampshire Primary or Iowa Caucus, or gets lots of press, we can recreate the article with better sources, but at present a mention in the article on the 2016 Republican Nomination will be sufficient.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm not sure that he'd even pass WP:PROF. There are currently no reliable, secondary sources about this person, but if somebody looks, they might be able to find something. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.